lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20100807.222543.235673802.davem@davemloft.net> Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2010 22:25:43 -0700 (PDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: xiaosuo@...il.com, therbert@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: disable preemption before call smp_processor_id() From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 21:57:51 -0700 > If I cover preemptible RCU's semantics, a first cut comes out like this: > > * In non-preemptible RCU implementations (TREE_RCU and TINY_RCU), it > * is illegal to block while in an RCU read-side critical section. In > * preemptible RCU implementations (TREE_PREEMPT_RCU and TINY_PREEMPT_RCU) > * in CONFIG_PREEMPT kernel builds, RCU read-side critical sections may > * be preempted, but explicit blocking is illegal. Finally, in preemptible > * RCU implementations in real-time (CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) kernel builds, > * RCU read-side critical sections may be preempted and they may also > * block, but only when acquiring spinlocks that are subject to priority > * inheritance. > > Does that seem reasonable? Sounds good to me. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists